Designated hitter > Can't we all get along?

[_sturt_]

Most typically, AL fans think the NL should get hip and join the DH offensive party, while NL fans think the AL should pause to think about the sacredness of managerial strategy... but according to an poll reported in an AP story last season, only about 30% are content with the situation as-is.

So, what to do? Aren't both side so firmly entrenched that it's a pipe-dream to think that one day we could see a unified rulebook... like, say, every other professional sport is able to boast, except for Selig's kingdom?

Probably so. Neither is likely to endorse the other's way of dealing with pitchers' place in the batting order.

But just what-if... what if there were some middle ground that could be surveyed and plotted out?

Just imagining that it were possible, would both leagues' fans be willing to give up some part of their current rule in order to gain unity?

What say you?

[AutographCollector]

I don't want the DH rule in the NL. If the pitchers have to hit, make them hit in both leagues. Having the DH in the AL is what makes it so much stronger of a league in my opinion. I can't wait to see Barry Zito take his first NL swing in a Giants uniform. :laugh :D

[SwissRedSoxFan]

Thats the pepper and salt. The difference between the two leagues...

Of course, The AL-teams should have better power numbers than NL-teams do if they are good managed, and pitchers with an 3.5 ERA in the NL should be calculated as an 4 ERA in the AL.

I like the DH-rule alot. Pitcher should be limited to pitch. But still I think it's fun that the NL has an other rule, it makes it excited.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Yeah the reason why the NL was so mediocre this season wasn't just because of the DH rule...there are what three or four impact DHs in the AL? What about the other good AL teams without an impact DH? The reason why the AL is stronger is because they have the better players, the DH rule helps but it's not the end all be all.

[Spazz]

I strongly oppose the DH rule. It should be dropped from both the AL and MiLB. Since that ain't likely to happen, at least leave it as is. The two leagues have a different "flavor" this way and as AutographCollector mentioned, it's neat to see former AL pitchers don a helmet and kick dirt around in the batter's box. Also, does anyone remember Jeff Suppan's HR this post-season? Talk about dramatic! NL pitchers can actually be called baseball players.

AL pitchers are, well, pitchers. :o

[Spazz]

Also, not that it really happens a lot, there is one other thing to consider. An AL pitcher can plunk a batter with impunity. Sure, he faces possible ejection but the NL pitcher has to face his coming at-bat. :D

[KCGHOST]

I love the DH and would hate to see us go back to pitchers "hitting".

[SamtheBravesFan]

I don't mind the DH at all. Leagues can pick and choose whether they want to use it or not. Sometimes, I think the DH is important.

[Mattingly]

* * *

Just imagining that it were possible, would both leagues' fans be willing to give up some part of their current rule in order to gain unity?

What say you?
How is it possible to give up a portion of the DH Rule in one league without giving it up altogether? To me, you either have a DH replacing a pitcher at the plate, like in the AL, or you have the pitcher bat for himself, like in the NL. Where is there a middle ground that I'm not considering?

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I personally am a big fan of the DH rule. I would hate to see it come to an end. The DH rule ads variety to the MLB by distinguishing the AL apart from and the NL, it gives distinct differences for each league. A different strategy for each league.

[_sturt_]

How is it possible to give up a portion of the DH Rule in one league without giving it up altogether? To me, you either have a DH replacing a pitcher at the plate, like in the AL, or you have the pitcher bat for himself, like in the NL. Where is there a middle ground that I'm not considering?

Thanks for responding to my question, Mat.

Actually, though, it's mostly pointless to go there if people are so entrenched and polarized on the two sides that they would are more satisfied to simply let the line stand rather than pursue compromise. I get the sense that that might be the case.

But just to humor your question, if you review the history, there were a few different forms of the DH rule that were considered in the late 60s before this one was implemented... none of which would I personally endorse above the one chosen, because frankly they were so convoluted in my humble opinion. In fact, the first DH experiment was not when the American League started in 73, but rather began with spring training in 69... and about six teams (all NL as I recall) declined to even give it a chance.

Having said that, as a consistency-freak who despises the idea that two leagues have separate rulebooks, and thus routinely implement dichotomous strategies, yet compete for one championship, it's my opinion that there are at least a couple of compromise ideas that merit further development through discussion.

[cardsfanatic]

How is it possible to give up a portion of the DH Rule in one league without giving it up altogether? To me, you either have a DH replacing a pitcher at the plate, like in the AL, or you have the pitcher bat for himself, like in the NL. Where is there a middle ground that I'm not considering?

Duh! Have the pitcher hit and a DH run the bases for him. Have Maddux swing his thunderstick and Big Papi standing right outside the batters box ready to zoom on down to first base. Compromise... solved.

And yes, I jest.

To answer the question, I like the rules how they are. I'm an NL guy and I like that the pitcher hitting makes managers 10x more important when it comes to their decisions. Aside from bullpen decisions what do AL managers even do?

With that said, I also like that the AL has the DH rule. It gives both leagues their own brand of baseball while not being too different. If you grew up watching AL baseball you're going to love the DH. If you grew up watching NL baseball, you're going to hate the DH. In the end, it makes the two leagues unique and I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Keep it as is.

[_sturt_]

(cardsfanatic... fyi, I live in Lexington... you close by?)

Okay, let me throw out a few of the more reasonable ideas for compromise, just so you know I'm not raising a red herring here.

Bear in mind that the two conflicting concerns, reduced to their essential bases are "more offense through creative substitution" vs. "the sacred-ness of managerial strategy."

So... the project becomes how to create more offense than what the NL game does while raising the degree to which managers must make decisions in a given game above what the AL game does...

I. The "Rotating Batter" Rule: Under this rule, managers would be able to pinch hit for the pitcher's slot at their pleasure and the pitcher may remain in the game without connection/consequence to who bats for them or when. This rule would be 25-man roster-intensive, and since managers would be slow to replace starting position players with bench players, would probably result in (1) the best batting pitcher on the team's staff taking the first AB through the order practically every game, (2) the best bench player taking over for one of the starting position players in either the second or third time through the order, and (3) a normal usage of bench players thereafter.

Thinking back to the primary purposes to the compromise: Offense would be increased somewhat for NL teams, decreased somewhat for AL teams; managerial strategy would be increased exponentially for both NL and AL teams because of the plethora of different combinations and ways that the RP slot could be employed.

II. The "Super Pinch Hitter" Rule: Under this rule, a manager would declare one of his bench players before each game to be his "SPH." This player would be allowed to pinch hit three times during the games, only once every time through the batting order (ie, nine ABs), and otherwise would be disallowed to play on defense for the entire game. Similar to the RP rule, the idea would be that the player for whom the SPH is pinch-hitting would be allowed to remain in the game.

Offense would be increased for NL teams, and would remain about the same for AL teams (maybe ever-so-slightly less); managerial strategy would remain about the same for NL teams (maybe ever-so-slightly greater), and increased for AL.

III. The "Limited Designated Hitter" Rule: For any one pitcher, there is one designated hitter that starts and remains in the game as long as the pitcher does; but when a team changes pitchers, the designated hitter either has to assume a fielding position and give up that slot to a new designated hitter, or leaves the game as he would any other pinch hitter.

Or, a slightly different version would be that there is only one DH per game, and when the starting pitcher exits, there are only pinch hitters (or the pitchers themselves) batting in that slot from that point forward.

Under "III-A," offense would be unchanged for AL, increased for NL; managerial strategy is somewhat increased for AL (if one assumes the starter goes 6 innings, as is about average), and decreased for the NL.

Under III-B," Offense would be slightly less for AL, increased for NL; managerial strategy would be significantly increased for AL, and about the same for NL.

I have no personal favorites... just a strong preference for one rulebook.

Candidly, and with all due respect to the AL fans, I *am* an NL fan, and I have a very hard time watching your game... you may feel the same about the NL game (?)... but I would love to *not* have a hard time watching your game, and feel that any change--even if my league has to give up a little something for the sake of offense--is welcome change, and quite possibly would result in more of us NL fans actually caring about the American League before the post season (... right now, I confess, I hardly ever watch anything but NL games, but I couldn't tell you how common that is). :atthepc

[dl4060]

I like the DH. I don't think it is likely to go away anytime soon. Most DH's are older players who have been in the league a long time. They usually have enough seniority that it would be tough to imagine the players union giving that up. They would be losing the jobs of players who have been playing awhile, and replacing them with pinch hitter/defensive replacement types, guys who probably have far less experience.

[digglahhh]

I think that the biggest reason the argue against the DH, at least in the current state of the game, is that it is another wedge between small and large market teams. Small market teams can't afford to spend big money on a high-priced luxury who only plays half of the game.

[Jack-o-lope]

I dont like the DH Nether.I think it takes the strategy out of the game. Like for example you have 1 or 2 outs a runner or runners on base and you see the pitcher batting on deck.Just give the Batter a free pass to first base and then you face the pitcher batting its almost like an automatic out.

[DodgerBlue8188]

I don't like the DH. I think it brings more strategy to the plate if the pitcher has to bat. The only time I'd be okay with it is the all star game so that more pitcher can pitich and batters bat.

[digglahhh]

I dont like the DH Nether.I think it takes the strategy out of the game. Like for example you have 1 or 2 outs a runner or runners on base and you see the pitcher batting on deck.Just give the Batter a free pass to first base and then you face the pitcher batting its almost like an automatic out.

Except, you don't actually help yourelf by doing that. Most #8 batters are no real threat either. The biggest obstacle to scoring is to have a pitcher lead off an inning.

Even with 2nd and 3rd and two out- a GOOD hitter will fail to get the job done 70% of the time, an average eighth place hitter, what 75-76% of the time?

If you have a .240 8th place hitter and you walk him to get to a .100 pitcher, you increase the likelihood of getting out of the inning from 76 to 90 percent. But then you have the lead-off hitter leading off the next inning. Compared to the pitcher, that team's likelihood of scoring the next inning certainly goes up by more than 14%.

[Jack-o-lope]

Any of you ever heard of Sparky Anderson? When he was manager of the REDS he always order the pitchers to walk the 8th batter when theres men in scoring position But he will only do this if there a man on second or first and second or second and thrid with 1 out or with 2 out. It cuts down a potentional big inning rally.

[Colorado Express]

Keep the DH, but keep both leagues as they are. I love the fact that the AL and NL rules are different. The only change that needs to occur is in All-Star games...why waste our time with pitchers hitting (none of them are there for what they do with the bat).

[SoxSon]

NL pitchers can actually be called baseball players. AL pitchers are, well, pitchers. :o

You're not actually insinuating that AL pitchers aren't baseball players, I hope?



I think the difference between the leagues is fine. I have an appreciation for both styles of play. I've watched with great admiration and anxiety when an NL pitcher comes to the plate with men in scoring position, but I also have no interest in watching any of Boston's starting pitchers feebly try to whack the ball.

[digglahhh]

Any of you ever heard of Sparky Anderson? When he was manager of the REDS he always order the pitchers to walk the 8th batter when theres men in scoring position But he will only do this if there a man on second or first and second or second and thrid with 1 out or with 2 out. It cuts down a potentional big inning rally.

Right, but not as much as it increases the likelihood of one happening next inning...

And who is this Sparky Anderson character, I have half a mind to think that you invented him out of thin air...:crazy

A lot of it depends on the situation too, what inning, caliber of pitcher, handedness...

[Jack-o-lope]

Right, but not as much as it increases the likelihood of one happening next inning...

And who is this Sparky Anderson character, I have half a mind to think that you invented him out of thin air...:crazy

A lot of it depends on the situation too, what inning, caliber of pitcher, handedness...


Sparky Anderson
http://detectovision.com/pics/sparky.JPG

[digglahhh]

I duuno,

I only see "ERSON" that could be anybody.

Could be Rickey Henderson wearing a mask, a photoshopped image of Curtis Granderson...:cool:

I'm just saying that just because a manager did/does it, that doesn't mean that it is the right decision. Doing it everytime is surely a bad idea.

[_sturt_]

Okay... I get it... there are several who like things as-is, and then, among those who want one rulebook, the only change anyone is interested in is if the other league changes to their league's rulebook.

Say that some compromise was compulsory, though... no baseball if a compromise couldn't be worked out. Just humor me for the moment.

Which of the compromise concepts listed above seems most appealing? What do you prefer about any one of them, and what is repulsive about any one of them???

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

If I had to choose, I think I would go with #3. But I would rather just keep things the way they are.

All of the options remove from the game the strategy that comes with taking a player out of the game. Allowing a "pseudo-DH" kind of defeats the purpose. I would rather just have a straight-up DH.

I am an AL fan (as I am a Jays fan), but I wouldn't be opposed to the DH being removed. I think that it's nice to have the pitcher hit as well. They are babied too much, IMO and they need to be able to learn to hit as well as focusing on their pitching. Through all levels of baseball at a young ages, they must hit as well as pitch. Why change it once they hit the Majors?

[NYMets523]

I think the DH rule is dumb and goes against traditional baseball rules where every player gets a turn to bat. Having a DH also takes out all the managerial strategy necessary to win. There are no double switches, pinch hitters, or pinch runners in the AL (for the most part). Unfortunately, the DH rule will never be dropped all together. It would put old hitters or fat power hitters out of work which would put the Union in an uproar.

However, I would get rid of the All-Star game determining home field advantage before I got rid of the DH. The ASG should be fun for the players, a chance to play the game with nothing on the line. There are 162 games to do that.

[Whitesoxnut]

I never liked this rule. I know its helps my White Sox, what with big Jim as the DH, but still, I like baseball when its a strategy/pure skills game. I like nothing better but great defense, base speed, fundamentals, and pitching duals. To me thats baseball.

Everything associated with this home run/power/hitting game has been detrimental.. But, I'm one of those lunatics that hangs on every play without noticing anything else.

[_sturt_]

All of the options remove from the game the strategy that comes with taking a player out of the game.

Actually, the "Limited DH" does take players out of the game and increases strategic decision-making--ie, because removing the starting pitcher has the consequence of removing the DH as well.

[Jack-o-lope]

Actually, the "Limited DH" does take players out of the game and increases strategic decision-making--ie, because removing the starting pitcher has the consequence of removing the DH as well.

Just like the Late innings.Sometimes a manager will warm up a pitcher in bullpen and then he pulls him out of on deck circle to put a pinch hitter up.

[Jack-o-lope]

And the DH Should never be in the minor leagues nether.If a Pitcher has to go in the national league someday he better learn to hit. So thats why i think no DH in the minor leagues.

[Mattingly]

I think that the biggest reason the argue against the DH, at least in the current state of the game, is that it is another wedge between small and large market teams. Small market teams can't afford to spend big money on a high-priced luxury who only plays half of the game.
First off, what would you consider the definition of "small market" and which teams would you say fit into that category?

Is Oakland, an AL team, smaller or larger market than neighboring San Francisco, an NL team?

Would Tampa Bay, FL and Kansas City, MO be considered small market? They both use the DH.

That small market can definitely be a stickler. We've discussed here actual population vs the "greater area", meaning the surrounding area. San Fran by itself is small (~800,000 or so population), but the immediate vicinity (Bay Area) is said to be very large.

I also don't consider the price to be a luxury. There are good players not making that much and if a guy makes $2-4m as a DH, I wouldn't consider that to be excessive. if a guy can hit .285-.300, 20 jacks, 80 RBI, .800+ OPS, cost that much, would that be excessively expensive to you for his performance, as a DH?

[digglahhh]

Well, Matt, the idea is that, from a purely practical standpoint, it would seem that outfitting your team with quality pitching and two-way players would be a higher priority- guys who can contribute one both sides of the ball.

So, my referral to the DH as a luxury just means that you often have to pay star-type money for an elite DH who only contributes in one half of the game.

I try to stay away from terms like "small market" teams, but I was in a rush- at work. Many of the small market teams have owners who are plenty rich and could fork out the money if they wanted. So, to remove "markets" from the equation, I would argue that the DH increases the correlation between payroll and success.

[_sturt_]

Sooooooooooooooooo... that's one vote for "III. Limited Designated Hitter." Thankayou Mister Phoenix...

Any others wanna humor me with their preference? :atthepc

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

No problem.

Looking over it, I think this is an instance that could best be described by Mr. Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

While alot of people don't like the DH, there really is no better suggestion. It's something that, IMO, should just be left alone.

[W_Marone]

The thing I don't like about the DH is the fans who back the DH whole heartly but then don't beleive a DH should win the MVP, even if they put up incredible stats. Why have the position, played by some of the best hitters in the American leauge and make it seemingly impossible to win an MVP award? Drop it and make the pitcher hit, or make it possible, or just as easy as a position player, for a DH to win the MVP if they put up a David Ortiz type year....

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Each person is allowed to have their own opinion on whether or not the DH should be eligible for MVP. Personally, I don't really care. If a player puts up amazing numbers (as the MVP must), I don't really care what position they play. But that statement has a flipside too. This means that a guy who might not hit 50 Homers should also be considered, if he has great defence and hits for average, for example.

[plask_stirlac]

Maybe bat the pitcher and have a DH hit for one fielding position. There's still an "easy out" and pinch-hitting for pitchers (who are accountable for their throws at hitters), but aging or iron-glove guys can DH. Offense gets a boost from the NL and a hit from the AL.

It would probably be catcher as the "Designated Fielder", let them focus on catching the game I guess.

[Mattingly]

Well, Matt, the idea is that, from a purely practical standpoint, it would seem that outfitting your team with quality pitching and two-way players would be a higher priority- guys who can contribute one both sides of the ball.

So, my referral to the DH as a luxury just means that you often have to pay star-type money for an elite DH who only contributes in one half of the game.

I try to stay away from terms like "small market" teams, but I was in a rush- at work. Many of the small market teams have owners who are plenty rich and could fork out the money if they wanted. So, to remove "markets" from the equation, I would argue that the DH increases the correlation between payroll and success.
diggs, since you were rushed at work, no biggie. I've had that issue myself, so I fully understand as we've all been there (or will be there for the younger forumers). :)

So let's pretend that we have a Team X, which is an AL team and has a payroll of $65m. I figure that's relatively low in the payroll scale.

What percentage of their salary do you believe they would be able to devote to a DH who's there solely to hit and rarely fields? Or do you think they shouldn't have a full-time DH, but just pick a guy who's not fielding that day to be the DH for the day?

For a player, I'm looking at the 2006 edition of Lyle Overbay (http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/overbly01.shtml). I think he has nice stats and made only $2.5m. If you were considering a player's salary vs the team payroll and the player's offense, would that be a good fit for you?

[Mattingly]

Each person is allowed to have their own opinion on whether or not the DH should be eligible for MVP. Personally, I don't really care. If a player puts up amazing numbers (as the MVP must), I don't really care what position they play. But that statement has a flipside too. This means that a guy who might not hit 50 Homers should also be considered, if he has great defence and hits for average, for example.
I've always said that a DH must put up some phenomenal numbers far above any position player in order to be worthy of the MVP. The fact that a position player can turn a DP or make a catch that kills a rally, whereas a DH has to await his turn at the plate, seem to myself to be factors.

If the position player also has good baserunning skills, can steal a few bases, then I believe that those add to his "value" when considering everything. I think there's more to a player's complete value than just AVG, doubles, dingers, RBI and OPS.

[EvanAparra]

Good post Ken.

I personally like DHs. Its more entertaining, IMO. I dont want to see pitchers in the box swinging at pitches like there is a bee attacking them, i'll take the majestic flight of a David Ortiz HR over that any day of the week.

[ElHalo]

Hockey doesn't make goalies take penalty shots. Football doesn't make defensive tackles throw passes. Baseball shouldn't make pitchers hit.

[_sturt_]

Sooooooooooooooooo... that's one vote for "III. Limited Designated Hitter." Thankayou Mister Phoenix...

Any others wanna humor me with their preference? :atthepc

Evidently not.

Forgive my frustration, we're but about 40 posts into this thing, and a grand total of about 5 of them have been on the question of a DH alternative, as opposed to the tired DH-NoDH debate to which there is nothing new to say that hasn't been said.

C'mon guys... let's explore some new territory.

[brewcrew82]

I'm sure by now most people know my stance on the DH (if you don't, see my profile).

In regards to the question at hand there is only one of the three options that really sticks out at me and that is the third...I think that is a really good idea! It would limit the effectiveness of career DH's (possibly make them field once the SP is out of the game) and bring more strategy into the AL that most people (not necessarily myself) cry out for.
Out of curiosity, would a relief pitcher have to hit for himself or would he have a new DH?

[_sturt_]

I'm sure by now most people know my stance on the DH (if you don't, see my profile).

In regards to the question at hand there is only one of the three options that really sticks out at me and that is the third...I think that is a really good idea! It would limit the effectiveness of career DH's (possibly make them field once the SP is out of the game) and bring more strategy into the AL that most people (not necessarily myself) cry out for.
Out of curiosity, would a relief pitcher have to hit for himself or would he have a new DH?

Depends on if you go with "III-A" or "III-B," brew.

I'd lean toward B... no new DH, just pinch hitters after the starting pitcher (and DH) exit.

[digglahhh]

No problem.

Looking over it, I think this is an instance that could best be described by Mr. Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

That quote is pretty apt here.

I assume that is Winston, not Ward, right...:)

[digglahhh]

Evidently not.

Forgive my frustration, we're but about 40 posts into this thing, and a grand total of about 5 of them have been on the question of a DH alternative, as opposed to the tired DH-NoDH debate to which there is nothing new to say that hasn't been said.

C'mon guys... let's explore some new territory.

Well, I respect your spunk and enthusiasm, but I don't know what exactly you see to be gained from finding out which "lesser evil" (evils to which something many of us already see as an evil is a preferable choice) we all choose.

Basically, you are asking us what our third choice would be to take care of the DH situation.

[KHenry14]

Not to be a Johnny Raincloud, but I can't conceive of any scenario that would change or eliminate the DH that Don Fehr and the Union would agree to. Players like Papi are making so much money as DH's that the Union would never allow a give back like that.

To me, it's insane that a major sporting league has different rules in it's game depending on which league you are in. And from what I've read, most of the NL owners would also never agree to allow the DH in their league, so it looks like we will be stuck with the status quo, no matter how illogical that is.

[_sturt_]

Not to be a Johnny Raincloud, but I can't conceive of any scenario that would change or eliminate the DH that Don Fehr and the Union would agree to. Players like Papi are making so much money as DH's that the Union would never allow a give back like that.

I get exactly what you're saying, and you aren't Johnny Raincloud, Henry... but my response is that I'm less interested in the politics side of it right now...

I subscribe to the theory that you have to have a really good idea before you can overcome the politics regardless, no matter what the topic...

And, to the theory that all-too-often, people fail to brainstorm and engineer credible ideas because they stop to think about the politics and become overcome with discouragement... so NO ONE EVER pursues it, and therefore, no good idea is ever developed.

My pursuit (though I quickly add, really "our"... I'm in the midst of gathering baseball minds to come along side to add input), then, is to explore (a) "what are the underlying hardline polarizations here that both leagues really care about," with an eye toward saying, (b) "in view of those polarizations, what alternative(s) can be identified that equitably addresses those such that both could come together instead of being divided."

Only if we're successful in coalescing around a strong alternative is the discussion of the politics even worthwhile.

(Recognizing, of course, that in developing any "product" -- and in this case, an idea is the product -- one must be inherently cognizant of the marketing of that product. So, indeed, we could come up with the most wonderful idea imaginable, but if its acceptance would require a vast departure from the conventions and norms that baseball fans accept, then the idea isn't wonderful because it isn't sell-able. One change in paradigm is okay--the DH in its inception required one such change, which was the idea that the pitcher would not have to bat... but every change beyond that exponentially stretches the political viability of a given idea, so that has to be weighted into the design.)

To me, it's insane that a major sporting league has different rules in it's game depending on which league you are in.

"Insane" may be a little strong, but we're definitely on the same page here... and I think that if more would pause to think about it rather than just accept it, there would be many others. I think it's really inherent that us 40+ year-olds lead the parade here, too... younger fans don't even recall a unified rulebook... but indeed, anyone ought to be able to see that, unless you're offering two different championships, it feins logic that it is acceptable to have two different rules, the contrast between which make the game strategies so distinctively different.

I'm not going so far as to say that it makes the championship illegitimate... certainly, you have one rulebook "in play" for any given World Series game. But the way you construct your team for one league is certainly different from the way you construct your team for the other league... so from a purely dry, scientific analysis, the World Series is as much an "experiment" to determine which form of construction is more efficient as it is which actual team is better than the other.

(I'm a college faculty member, so it's kind of ingrained in the way I think... but I dare say, it's a left-brain thing, so not at all exclusive to academe)

And from what I've read, most of the NL owners would also never agree to allow the DH in their league, so it looks like we will be stuck with the status quo, no matter how illogical that is.

Henry, I'm convinced that the idea of an "alternative" has just never been part of the discussion, so it's casually dismissed prematurely.

I mean, just look at this thread... far more often than not, people (and I would include administrators and fans in that) do not even conceive that to work out an alternative (one that meets something of both agendas--offense and managerial strategy) is an option.

Frankly, and without being derogatory of any particular administrator or fan, it's incredible and/or stupid that in the 21st century, we routinely and productively apply the idea of negotiation to every facet of life, except when it comes to this game we love, us baseball people don't even imagine that to be a remote possibility...

I'd like to think we can catch up to the rest of the post-modern world and re-think that.

[digglahhh]

Sturt,

The problem with the "compromise" is a fundamental one. The central concept surrounding many fans' opinions regarding the DH is purity. The traditional, DH-less, NL style represents the pure. The American League style represents the impure- but, with its thirty-some-odd year precedent, that impurity has at least reached the level of acceptance- indifference to some and even embrace by others.

What you see as a compromise- a way to reclaim purity by unifying the rule book is seen by many more as the abandonment of the last remaining piece of true purity.

To many, the unifying of the rule book is not the central theme. Purity can only be reclaimed by reverting to a DH-less game. From that perspective, any further alteration is a step further from purity, an acquiescence to the impure DH- whether or not it unifies the rules.

I would venture to posit that most NL fans, and anti-DHers would rather adopt the DH than some sort of hybrid form. If that is true, it confirms the notion that unification of the rule book is not what fans associate with purity- at least not as strongly as tradition.

Tradition is so strong in the game of baseball, and the DH, although still somewhat of a lightning rod, has become codified in the game enough that subsequent modification is not seen as improvement, but just further tampering.

It's like the generic sitcom scene, where a character makes a small hole in a wall, and then in trying to fix it knocks the whole wall down, there is no solace in the fact that whole wall is no gone.

[milladrive]

I think the DH should be eliminated from the MLB. That's all I'll say for now.

[_sturt_]

digglahhh,

I wouldn't very much dispute anything you've stated, except that, again, hardly anyone has even considered the idea of an alternative middle-ground, so it's simply not even been explored, and as such, the satisfaction that fans might feel from having a one-rulebook game is not measurable... when people have always thought in terms of two choices as valid (vanilla and chocolate, Coke and Pepsi, Ford and Chevy), and not three (strawberry, Mountain Dew, Toyota), they are predictably dismissive... and as such, they miss the opportunity for something they may find that they like much better.

Why is that?

Because all of this time since 1973, new-schoolers have thought/hoped that eventually the old-schoolers would see that they were just being stick-in-the-muds and would come around... and old-schoolers have thought that eventually the new schoolers would realize the error of their ways and return to the sacred tradition.

I get your wall analogy. Let's use that.

Can you see that the traditionalists' proverbial wall is already damaged? Their wall is already damanged because their wall is not exclusively their wall--rather, they share the wall. That is in spite of the fact that they may routinely put blinders on during discussions like this so that they don't have to acknowledge it as they look down the street... yet every season, they are forced to look it square in the face (in their own ballparks, no less) and acknowledge it because not only do they share a championship, but now, they also have interleague play.

The result is this: we clearly have two different ways of constructing a team, yet play at the end of the season for one championship... and there is a way of thinking -- certainly, I'd argue, a higher level of thinking -- that says, "that's not logical"... again, the championship is not a purely fair championship by virtue of the fact that Major League Baseball currently has prescribed two separate and consequential preconditions for how teams are to strategize and play.

In the year 2007, having now put 30+ years behind us, we're smart enough to recognize both of those points--ie, that neither polarization is going to give in and be championed by the other, and that the World Series is not a purely congruent test for which team should be crowned "the best."

So, I'm not proposing "purity" in terms of returning to an original set of rules, but "purity" in terms of simple logic and reason.

But wait... there's one other just-as important sense in which I'm proposing "purity," and concurrently, a strict devotion to the original set of rules, ie "tradition":

That is, for decades and decades, the two leagues DID play by one rulebook... and thus, DID have a purely congruent championship...

Where has the outcry been for the "tradition" set by having one rulebook?... for "one" way of playing the game?... for a World Series involving teams constructed without differing types of strategy influencing their roster construction?

Indeed, the tradition that is greater than the no-DH tradition is the one that is paramount in every other professional sport, with only American baseball as the glaring exception--ie, every team competing for the championship must play by the exact same set of rules.

I would argue that that is the tradition and the purity that is to be sought; and recognizing the entrenchment of both the DH and no-DH sides, it is concurrently (and fortunately) the most realistic and attainable tradition and purity in sight, as well.

[-Kyle-]

The thing I don't like about the DH is the fans who back the DH whole heartly but then don't beleive a DH should win the MVP, even if they put up incredible stats. Why have the position, played by some of the best hitters in the American leauge and make it seemingly impossible to win an MVP award? Drop it and make the pitcher hit, or make it possible, or just as easy as a position player, for a DH to win the MVP if they put up a David Ortiz type year....

Don't get me started. :D

[digglahhh]

I would argue that that is the tradition and the purity that is to be sought; and recognizing the entrenchment of both the DH and no-DH sides, it is concurrently (and fortunately) the most realistic and attainable tradition and purity in sight, as well.

Yeah, equal rules is certainly the most fundamental tradition at play. It pre-supposes any decision about the rules themselves.

But people do tend to think in terms of black and white (literally and figuratively), we are conditioned to do so.

If you have two kids and one of them wants pizza and the other one wants tuna fish, and you propose the idea of a compromise by replacing the mayo in the tuna salad with tomato sauce, how do you think people are going to interpret that? That you pleased no one in attempt to please both or that you solved the greater and more fundamental problem which was the undeniable need to eat?...

I understand your desire for a more fundamental purity. But on this issue it seems that binary thinking prevails. The current generation (of which I actually am a part of, at 26) doesn't seem to fully understand the ridiculousness of having different rules for two leagues. They say they like the diversity- as if they would embraced it if the Eastern Conference of the NBA suddenly decided to remove the three point line.

The hybrid just won't fly. Again, if the unification of the rules was the primary issue with most people, you would see more people volunteer to accept the other league's rules for the sake of consistency. But, you don't. You hear plenty of complaining about inconsistency, but not many willing to sacrifice to remedy it.

Not so fast, Elaine! Only the bike's true owner would rather give it away than see it come to harm. Kramer, the bike is yours!

Next time, you get to pick the crazy analogies...

[_sturt_]

I understand your desire for a more fundamental purity. But on this issue it seems that binary thinking prevails. The current generation (of which I actually am a part of, at 26) doesn't seem to fully understand the ridiculousness of having different rules for two leagues. They say they like the diversity- as if they would embraced it if the Eastern Conference of the NBA suddenly decided to remove the three point line.

Yes. But to be exact: It prevails in the current environment.

The hybrid just won't fly.

Yes. But again to be exact: An alternative won't fly in the current environment.

We all accept the fact that the only constant is change.

As I said: "...hardly anyone has even considered the idea of an alternative middle-ground, so it's simply not even been explored, and as such, the satisfaction that fans might feel from having a one-rulebook game is not measurable... when people have always thought in terms of two choices as valid (vanilla and chocolate, Coke and Pepsi, Ford and Chevy), and not three (strawberry, Mountain Dew, Toyota), they are predictably dismissive... and as such, they miss the opportunity for something they may find that they like much better."

Again, if the unification of the rules was the primary issue with most people, you would see more people volunteer to accept the other league's rules for the sake of consistency. But, you don't. You hear plenty of complaining about inconsistency, but not many willing to sacrifice to remedy it.

Yes, but I would argue that the unification of the rules is not the primary issue simply because they have no earthly idea how one might structure an alternative that makes a lick of sense... consider cardsfanatic's earlier response... that's a typical reaction to the notion... or, if I may, your own analogy about replacing mayo with tomato sauce, which presupposes something that tastes bad, vis-a-vis is an unappetizing product in the end.

It's true, people would rather maintain than to wholesale buy-in to the other league's rulebook...

But when have they ever been offered a third option at all???

In all of our years as baseball fans, I dare say that the prospect of a compromise option has never ever even been on the radar screen, let alone debated on its merits. Don't the consumers have to know what strawberry ice cream tastes like before one can judge what the market is likely to be for the product?

I'm arguing that the same holds here--they've never imagined what an alternative would look like, so they obviously aren't going to be inclined to say "yes, I like that one."

That's all I'm saying.

Well... not all I'm saying, but it's the biggest part of why I posted the thread, candidly... to see how many true baseball fans I could get (a) to sample some of the rationale for an alternative, and then, (b) to sample some actual "seedlings of ideas" (how's that for a feeble analogy?) for an alternative.

If you break apart the components that people are really concerned to maintain (AL=offense, NL=managerial strategy), it is altogether possible to find something that both sides, after having the whole picture illuminated, would come to see as an improvement over the current state of things. So, instead of tomato sauce on the tuna fish sandwich, maybe it's cheese that goes good with tuna... or instead of mayo on the pizza, maybe its green peppers... ingredients/components that are both appetizing and uniting.

Carrying the analogy further, this reminds me too that there was a time when one would have never imagined putting pineapple and ham on a pizza with tomato sauce... today, that accounts for about half the pizzas that ever make their way to my house... another example that as people are exposed to alternatives, things they may never have dreamed would be appealing become delicious after having actually tasted those alternatives... times do change.

:atthepc

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Gotta say I hate the DH. But if we're talking about a middle ground, why not let both the AL and the NL use a DH in one game per series. This would keep the traditional strategy of the game in tact for the other games of the series, and also add a strategical factor of what game you choose to use the DH. Just an not-very-well-thought-out idea.

[_sturt_]

Sultan... glad you're thinking... I think you'd face the same stalemate, however... AL fans would say, "why does the NL version get two or three games for every one game played the AL way?"... just my opinion, but I'd suggest the solution has to pander to both sides' primary concerns better.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan... glad you're thinking... I think you'd face the same stalemate, however... AL fans would say, "why does the NL version get two or three games for every one game played the AL way?"... just my opinion, but I'd suggest the solution has to pander to both sides' primary concerns better.

Well what a bunch of whiners....Then how bout only one game per series goes without the DH, geez. Like a bunch of twelve year olds.

Look, if I had my way it would have been gone long ago. The reason it was created was to solve a problem that no longer exists. Like if you had a leak in your pipes under your sink, and you didn't have money to fix it. So every other day you had to put on some leak-stopper crap. Eventually you save up enough money to have a plummer come out and replace the pipe. Why would you continue to put the goop on there every other day. Cause you enjoyed it?

Baseball needs to get out of this mode of catering to the casual fan....offense, offense, offense...when is enough, enough. We already can't compare eras and ballparks are more like Disneyland than a place to actually go watch our National Pastime. Why don't they just go MTV Rock'n'Jock and put farm animals and targets in the outfield. Hit one of those and its automatic 5 runs. Maybe they could even use a "moneyball" with 2 strikes, and if its yacked out, its 10 runs. Sickening.

[JamesWest]

It's easy. The AL teams use the DH in every game they play. The NL teams never use the DH in any game that they play.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Huh. Hadn't thought of that ;)

[_sturt_]

It's easy. The AL teams use the DH in every game they play. The NL teams never use the DH in any game that they play.

I'm sure it wasn't easy to convince that first person to taste pineapple on pizza, either... but thank God they did. :laugh

[JamesWest]

I'm sure it wasn't easy to convince that first person to taste pineapple on pizza, either... but thank God they did. :laugh

A horrible concoction.

[KHenry14]

_sturt_, the problem with your scenario (and I understand your point) is that the union is incredibly inflexible to anything that might possibly impact the DH. It's been made clear to the NL owners that there will be no barganing over that issue (even if the rosters were to be expanded by a player or two), so it's going to be pretty tough to bring any alternative to the table. The Union realizes they've got a good thing going here, with guys like Papi making the big bucks, so they've closed their eyes and ears to anything to do with the DH.

To do what you want to do would require parties to be even be a bit open to the discussion, something I doubt the Union be.

I'm with Sultan, the reason it was created was in reaction to the 60's and the lack of hitting. But with the plethora of parks like Coors Field and Minute Maid etc., that isn't a problem any more. Which means it's a good time for an alternative discussion like yours. I just wish some of the parties would participate.

[_sturt_]

Henry, like I said...

Only if we're successful in coalescing around a strong alternative is the discussion of the politics even worthwhile.

Let's see if we can develop a strong alternative first... it costs us nothing but some of the time we spend here on the internet.

If that can't be done, it's a moot point. That may very well be the case.

But the vision would be, if it can be done, then we can move on to see if we can get some grassroots consensus to swell up... and then who knows how things might flow from there. (What a novel idea... a rule modification because FANS brought it up, not Selig or one of the owners, or for that matter, Fehr. *wink*)

I will only say this in relation to the fear of Fehr (like that???): as someone had said earlier in this thread, only a small number (two that I can think of) of the fourteen AL teams have DHs that one would call "marquee." By far, most fill-in that position with a more common, less celebrated, not-particularly-well-paid kind of player. So, I think one might even be able to argue, for at least two (and maybe all three) of the alternatives described earlier, that overall the median salary for bench players would raise... ie, because they may have a more valuable role since the DH wouldn't stay in the game for 9 innings.

[digglahhh]

Yes, but I would argue that the unification of the rules is not the primary issue simply because they have no earthly idea how one might structure an alternative that makes a lick of sense[/U]... consider cardsfanatic's earlier response... that's a typical reaction to the notion... or, if I may, your own analogy about replacing mayo with tomato sauce, which presupposes something that tastes bad, vis-a-vis is an unappetizing product in the end.

I'm not presupposing that the end product is unappetizing on the basis of binary thinking. I'm supposing it based upon the fact that those who like mayo profess not to like tomato sauce, and vice versa.

To be frank, I'd rather my league adopt the DH to unify the rules than both leagues implement one of your suggestions. I'm not intending to discourage you; keep thinking and proposing.:atthepc

I have entertained this thought before, and I have not come up with an idea of my own or heard one from somebody else that I'd sooner bw willing to adopt than I would to sacrifice my preference. That's why I had originally said, when you were asking peoples' opinions on your suggestions, that you were seeking to find my third choice.

Nice retort within the pizza analogy though. And since you worked through that so well, I will bitterly point out that strawberry is not a hybrid of chocolate and vanilla, nor is Mountain Dew of Pepsi and Coke. (I can anticipate your response to that, though)

[_sturt_]

To be frank, I'd rather my league adopt the DH to unify the rules than both leagues implement one of your suggestions. I'm not intending to discourage you; keep thinking and proposing.

Well, I've thought about it, but I'm like others who are just totally turned off by the degree to which the DH compromises the degree of strategy in a game... so, in truth, if I get a vote, I'd never be happy with a straight-up AL-style DH rule for my (ie, our) league. Yeah... I'd rather it all remain the same than to do something that I think makes the game worse across both leagues, not better.

But see, that's at the core of what we're talking about here... the standard for any alternative not only needs to be "would this be acceptable to the wider body of baseball fans," but just as pointedly, "does Alternative X make the game better (ie, by clearly promoting offense, and at the same time clearly promoting managerial strategy, which is what both sides really want to begin with)...?"

Another note: I'm only the originator on two of those three ideas, and frankly am probably more enthusiastic at this point about the one that someone else's brain gave birth to.

They are all, indeed, seedlings of ideas that may serve as a base for some tweaking, and fashioning into something that most improves the game for both leagues. So, I encourage you and others here... keep thinking and proposing as well.

Nice retort within the pizza analogy though. And since you worked through that so well, I will bitterly point out that strawberry is not a hybrid of chocolate and vanilla, nor is Mountain Dew of Pepsi and Coke. (I can anticipate your response to that, though)

It is the nature of analogies to break down at some point if you dig too deep. (Was that your anticipated response? :) )

I was merely seeking to point out that, until people can actually grasp how something tastes (or in this case, how something would work), it's difficult to measure how much they'd embrace it... and when they don't even have a concept of what it would look like (see one of Mattingly's first posts in this thread), all the more so.... any attempt to extend the analogy beyond that is beyond its intent, and beyond its ability to stand up to scrutiny... as you've demonstrated.

[digglahhh]

It is the nature of analogies to break down at some point if you dig too deep. (Was that your anticipated response? :) )

I was merely seeking to point out that, until people can actually grasp how something tastes (or in this case, how something would work), it's difficult to measure how much they'd embrace it... and when they don't even have a concept of what it would look like (see one of Mattingly's first posts in this thread), all the more so.... any attempt to extend the analogy beyond that is beyond its intent, and beyond its ability to stand up to scrutiny... as you've demonstrated.

Basically.

I figured you'd say that the ice cream analogy was brought up to note what is (potentially) lost by binary thinking and not to reflect the specific situation we are discussing. :)


But, given the ultimatum, would you adopt the DH to reclaim a congruent rule book? You have repeatedly professed that equality is the most noble, if not desirable, goal.

[cubsfan1073]

I hate the DH rule, having pitchers bat makes the strategy of the game a lot more fun. In the AL, there is no small ball because they are always waiting on the long ball. I love watching bunts and pinch hits and steals, but the AL doesn't have much of that because they have a David Ortiz or a Travis Hafner batting. Players shouldn't be able to just bat and not play the field. Batting is just half the game and players need to play both sides of the game. It's also fun to watch the pitcher bat, sometimes pitchers can actually hit, like Jason Marquis, Carlos Zambrano or Mike Hampton. It is also interesting to see when the managers pinch hit and when they don't. The DH rule needs to be eliminated from baseball totally and let the pitcher hit.

[tigers527]

Also, not that it really happens a lot, there is one other thing to consider. An AL pitcher can plunk a batter with impunity. Sure, he faces possible ejection but the NL pitcher has to face his coming at-bat. :D

I hate that argument....Just handle it the Ty Cobb/ Norm Cash way....drag a bunt down the 1st baseline and run the offending pitcher over (regardless of where he is on the field, as long as he's close to 1st base)...Of course, that would require the changing of the Umps nearly hair trigger throwing people out rule. That rule also doesn't allow the retaliation of the opposing team, in most cases.

[digglahhh]

Yeah, the retaliation argument is nearly moot, since the umps handcuff the pitchers without the need of any help from a DH.

[tigers527]

How about let the DH in the NL and allow the AL to have 9 DHs? You would need to expand the rosters at least in the AL (perhaps 30 man roster). Instead of having any defensive players bat, you let the whole AL DH every position.

This does answer somewhat, the whole 2 leagues 2 rules thing, unlike other sports. The reason the "other" sports don't have seperate rules like baseball, is because the other sports don't have concrete rules regarding position. In no other sport is it required that every player on the defensive side, become an equal part of the offense (1/9th, in baseballs case). Believe me being in Detroit, there is no way I would want to see 1/5th of every Piston FG attempt in the last few years be made by Ben Wallace. Nor would you want every NBA team to run a point foward. I won't even get into Football...but isn't an AL pitcher not unlike an NHL goalie? Neither guy takes part in the offense...ok there is an occaisional NHL goalie assist...but that is usually akin to an NL pitcher batting and getting an RBI for being walked with the bases loaded (no offense Ron Hextall fans).

Ok, I say that in jest (the whole 9 DHs thing), but most of what we are talking about (in regards to removing the DH, or cutting down on the DHs role) is akin to throwing poop into a fan. The MLB PA is NEVER going to let go of the DH. First the DH brings up every players salary (average), and second the DH allows skilled players a chance to lengthen their careers.

In seriousness, the only thing I would like to see changed would be the interleague rules. They should be flip floped, the host AL team should let pitchers bat and the host NL team should allow the DH. My reasoning is simple, if you live in say Colorado and Boston is coming to town. Is there a good reason to not let those folks see "Big Papi" take his 5 hacks a game? For that matter being a Detroit fan, I would like to take in a home game and cheer my teams pitchers on as they flail away. For those that say balance issues, I say since when has the league cared about that? Give the NL fans a chance to see the best DHs in the game and give the AL fans a chance to see their pitchers bat, I mean if you're going to have interleague anyway who's it hurt? Besides I would think the homefield last ABs would outweigh whatever quantifible advantage either league would have with that rule being swapped?

[tigers527]

Along the line of what I just posted, and the whole make the DH in the NL parks during interleague and vice versa thing. The biggest cheer I heard in the 06 regular season for any Tiger batter, was during the Cubs v Tigers in Wrigley. It was late in a blow out and the 25%ish Tiger fans really made the tight confines of Wrigley rock when Fernando Rodney steped to the dish. Rodney came in in the bottom of the 7th...the top of the 8th the Tigers scored several more runs. Since Rodneys spot was due, Leyland let him hack...people went nuts.

Besides wouldn't you NL fans like to see Sheffield bat, without seeing him play 1st (jeeze that was a mess, last year)?

[Sliding Billy]

Indeed, the tradition that is greater than the no-DH tradition is the one that is paramount in every other professional sport, with only American baseball as the glaring exception--ie, every team competing for the championship must play by the exact same set of rules.

I would argue that that is the tradition and the purity that is to be sought; and recognizing the entrenchment of both the DH and no-DH sides, it is concurrently (and fortunately) the most realistic and attainable tradition and purity in sight, as well.
How would it be if we played by one set of rules some of the time and two sets of rules the rest of the time? That way there's something for everybody.

[_sturt_]

But, given the ultimatum, would you adopt the DH to reclaim a congruent rule book? You have repeatedly professed that equality is the most noble, if not desirable, goal.

Thanks.

This essentially answers that (or so I'd thought???)...

I'd rather it all remain the same than to do something that I think makes the game worse across both leagues, not better.

But see, that's at the core of what we're talking about here... the standard for any alternative not only needs to be "would this be acceptable to the wider body of baseball fans," but just as pointedly, "does Alternative X make the game better (ie, by clearly promoting offense, and at the same time clearly promoting managerial strategy, which is what both sides really want to begin with)...?"

Okay, but if _sturt_ gets to be All Supreme King of Baseball, my decree is that congruency certainly is a high priority... but there just has to be some concession away from the DH for me to consider it an improvement, and thus worthy of enactment. Improvement takes the highest priority; so whether it's DH, No DH, or some alternative, if it doesn't improve the game, it's dead in the water and no other criteria matter.

Of course, an AL fan elected All Supreme King may repeat the same about "no DH," and it would be just as valid.

So, at the end of the day, we're all left with figuring out if we can come together on an alternative that can, to a better degree than does the present situation, satisfy our essential concerns about the game with or without the DH... if we can't coalesce around a particular alternative or alternatives as improvement/improvements, then the ideal of congruence just can't be reached.

I'm optimistic by nature, but that doesn't mean that I fail to recognize the challenge. I'm just inclined to believe that once some number of serious, intelligent baseball fans of similar optimism take on the challenge, that there is an alternative worthy of being envisioned and imagined and strongly considered...

But it takes more than just reading a description and making an instant assessment... it takes a person playing the game under the alternate rule on the DVD in their head b/t their team and their rival, and getting an honest feel for what it would look like.

I'm sure that's why I've come to favor the one that I favor... it's quite easy to imagine it, even as it seems to address equitably both AL and NL priorities.

[THE OX]

Most typically, AL fans think the NL should get hip and join the DH offensive party, while NL fans think the AL should pause to think about the sacredness of managerial strategy...
... like, say, every other professional sport is able to boast, except for Selig's kingdom?


Just for the record, this Charlie Foxtrot excrescence (the DH) came into being in 1973, when Bud Selig was just getting used to being the owner of the Brewers.

I get more than a little sick of all the "Selig-bashing" I hear!

[Brian McKenna]

I get more than a little sick of all the "Selig-bashing" I hear!

It's the daddy syndrome - everyone wants to blame parents, bosses, politicians, etc. for all of life's little perceived-woes.

The underlying premise being that they could do a better job, IF only they were in control.

The reality being that offering criticism without a workable, well-thought, financially-responsible/progressive, feasible and appropriate solution that addresses all major concerns is just whining. Not to mention the fact that the individual is not in control FOR A REASON.

Most people are not in an administrative position and are unappreciative of what it takes to drive sales/industry/innovation/etc., initiate change, manage information, weigh major concerns, implement policies that at first will definitely rock many, deal with complaints and keep employees, investors, peers and patrons happy while at the same time complying with all contraints of the position, whether they be legal, political, practical, technological, financial, mandated or just perceived. Hence, it all looks so easy and obvious from an outsider.

[digglahhh]

Thanks.

This essentially answers that (or so I'd thought???)...


Okay, but if _sturt_ gets to be All Supreme King of Baseball, my decree is that congruency certainly is a high priority... but there just has to be some concession away from the DH for me to consider it an improvement, and thus worthy of enactment. Improvement takes the highest priority; so whether it's DH, No DH, or some alternative, if it doesn't improve the game, it's dead in the water and no other criteria matter.

Of course, an AL fan elected All Supreme King may repeat the same about "no DH," and it would be just as valid.

Here, you basically acknowledge the philosophical impasse. By declaring "improvement" the number one priority you make the mess even bigger. Improvement is entirely subjective and therefore makes it even less likely that an alternative could gain strength based upon such a quality. In fact, "improvement" to you is just a PC way of referring to a scaling back of the use and importance of the DH.

Consistency, or an equal rule book, is at least an objective quality. It is entirely possible to make an argument on this basis, independent of individual preference- even independent of any knowledge or appreciation of baseball at all. "Improvement" invites individual preference and, in fact, you admit that you would sacrifice congruence for "improvement."

Speaking Platonically, one might note that justice is the true virtue, and that congruence represents justice here. So, by achieving justice, (even by the NL adopting the DH) the sport would improve, de facto, independent of the actual game play, since the fundamental organizational principles become more virtuous.

Thanks kind of the line that I'm taking. The improvement is in the congruence, not the specific design. Of course, my preference is that the AL conforms to the NL.

[_sturt_]

Just for the record, this Charlie Foxtrot excrescence (the DH) came into being in 1973, when Bud Selig was just getting used to being the owner of the Brewers.

I get more than a little sick of all the "Selig-bashing" I hear!

Ox, you read far more into that than I'd intended. I can bash Selig on occasion, but have no particular ax to grind, on balance. I was only attempting a little creativity in my prose. Sorry I miscommunicated.

[_sturt_]

dig, I just had a quick pass over your post, and I'm on a tight schedule today, but just my quick response:

Indeed, the crux of it all, once one becomes aware of as many potential options as one can brainstorm (and, it is significant to note, not before), is to make a judgment as to what actually improves, vs. what actually detracts. Then, to aspire to congruence based on which of the options best "improves," which can be partially defined by how well it/they address/es the foundational concerns (offense and managerial strategy).

Fwiw, my take is that I feel quite confident that at least two of the options listed meet that criteria, and the third is a maybe. And what's more, there are likely other options that have not yet even been thought of.

But I repeat... if fans have not (a) became aware and (b) genuinely considered for a period of time in their minds the options, it is premature to jump to the conclusion that its not worth pursuing. I feel strongly this is the most important and most valid point of all that I've written in this thread.